Some 'Splainin' To Do:I'm guessing that you think that Hispanic is a race and not an ethnic category, yes?

What DOES Hispanic truly mean anyway? A man born in Mexico with Spanish ancestry. A Native Incan living in Peru and speaking his indigenous language. A half Spanish half African person from Guatemala. Which of these people are or are not Hispanic? Seems to me it's more cultural than ethnic, but I'm no anthropologist.

This actually was the law in parts of France, a few centuries ago. In response, people developed the fighting style that later came to be called savate, which specializes in kicks, open-handed slaps, and other means of dancing around the "a fist is a deadly weapon" rule.

Radioactive Ass:Popcorn Johnny: The judge didn't grant the defense motion to throw out the case, so Zimmerman must be guilty. That's what Team Trayvon has been rolling with on Facebook and other sites. Never mind the fact that judges never grant a motion to dismiss after hearing half the case.

Almost never. That's because usually the Grand Jury or pretrial hearings in self-defense cases filter out the most clear cut ones so they never go to trial. That being said there was no Grand Jury on this one (gee I wonder why) and Zimmerman waived his hearing on SYG so that JOA had a very slightly better chance than normal (by maybe 1% if that) of being granted with a case that didn't have all of this media attention. That being said this particular case was going to the jury no matter what.

They didn't have enough evidence to get through a grand jury, so they skipped it. Also, they left out exculpatory evidence.

WillofJ2:lantawa: I'm hoping that the defense team gets Benjamin Crump up on the stand and tears his scheming, lying ass apart, causing him both to perjure himself and completely disqualify himself as a reasonable and ethical attorney. (I think that he's already done the latter to himself, BTW). Dump the Crump, you J4T folk, and you'll be that much better for it.....

Can he claim some legal immunity because he represents the victims as a civil attorney?

I don't know. Hell, he actually seems to be a halfway competent attorney, having already secured other civil judgments in favor of the Martins. It does seem, though, that he's a major orchestrater of the baby-faced Martin the Victim story line that's so farkin' bogus it's ridiculous.

KellyX:WillofJ2: KellyX: bigpete53: KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple

Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.

Somehow I don't consider Daytona Beach as "deep south" nor Jacksonville for that matter... (Palm Coast, St. Augustine, or Sanford...) I don't know the panhandle region as well, but somehow I don't think it's rapid racism like you'd find in SC or AL areas...

Man go to clay county, south past middleburg and all that area in between saint augustine and the gulf all that farming and logging area you will feel really out of place confederate flags everywhere, its wild almost seems like a different place completely

I don't deny there are areas that are very redneck, but Florida is so far from being described as "deep south"... I guess it's so "deep south" it elected a black democrat to be President of the US twice in a row...

Magorn:This is the basic truth of the matter. Most Zimmerman supporters are terrified racists, not legal analysts. I've watched this case from the beginning, and especially on the Uber-conservative sites like Free Republic, the narrative has shifted. On day one it was mostly "Jeez what an irresponsible idiot Zimmerman is, bet the libs will take away our guns because of this guy's stupidity" but slowly, as the racial angle was played up by the media, Zimmerman became a blameless saint and Martin a dark, scary, agressive "thug" who clearly had it coming.

TP, I'mma lay it on the line, You seem like a decent person by and large, if a reflexively conservative one poltically. but on this subject your views are colored by bias. You, and a half a dozen of the most vocal Zimmerman defenders on this thread are, whether you realize it or not, stone cold racists, and your worldview is so warped you don't even realize it.

So the media was the first to bring up race, forcing charges for someone who the Sanford PD and FBI found no grounds to indict, and Zimmerman supporters are the racists. Despite their being absolutely not one shred of evidence that race played any part whatsoever.

Radioactive Ass:Scerpes: They couldn't pursue 1st degree murder without an indictment in Florida. They can and have gone for 2nd degree murder.

I have read differently regarding this. I've read that a Grand Jury is required for Murder 1 but for anything less a judge can review the evidence and go from there based upon what was before him. Essentially a Grand Jury finding from the bench if you will. This is done to prevent malicious prosecutions from occurring by adding a level of judicial review instead of just letting prosecutors run amok. I mean otherwise a prosecutor with an axe to grind could really cause some damage financially and to a persons reputation as they defend themselves on trumped up charges right?

In high profile cases, an elected judge is unwilling to toss the charges anyway - that's the only reason Zimmerman is still facing trial.

bigpete53:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: KellyX: bigpete53: KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple

Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.

Somehow I don't consider Daytona Beach as "deep south" nor Jacksonville for that matter... (Palm Coast, St. Augustine, or Sanford...) I don't know the panhandle region as well, but somehow I don't think it's rapid racism like you'd find in SC or AL areas...

Florida isn't the deep south. There are some areas, like Live Oak, that are indistinguishable from rural Georgia, but no one lives in those areas. Coastal Florida (where the people live) is very cosmopolitan. Anyone suggesting that 2013 Florida is "deep south" is either an idiot, or lying for political reasons.

Drive I-10 through northern Florida and tell me it isn't deep South. Just because the large metro areas aren't deep South doesn't mean the rural areas aren't. I live in NOLA, and I have no problem saying that areas just 30 minutes outside the city limits are still Deep South. Heck, 90% of those swamp shows are shot within 100 miles of NOLA.

Yeah, the areas of Florida that no one lives in are very Deep South. Brilliant point.

WillofJ2:KellyX: WillofJ2: KellyX: bigpete53: KellyX: You still really consider Florida to be the "deep south"... There's a reason it's purple

Everything north of Orlando is pretty deep South. Especially when you get up to the point where you're even with the panhandle.

Somehow I don't consider Daytona Beach as "deep south" nor Jacksonville for that matter... (Palm Coast, St. Augustine, or Sanford...) I don't know the panhandle region as well, but somehow I don't think it's rapid racism like you'd find in SC or AL areas...

Man go to clay county, south past middleburg and all that area in between saint augustine and the gulf all that farming and logging area you will feel really out of place confederate flags everywhere, its wild almost seems like a different place completely

I don't deny there are areas that are very redneck, but Florida is so far from being described as "deep south"... I guess it's so "deep south" it elected a black democrat to be President of the US twice in a row...

[rstreet.org image 300x224]

And many of those red counties were nearly 50% votes for the Democrats, it's a very purple state, say what you want...

"The crazy ass LARP cop ran me down and threatened my life. He had a gun and was gonna killed me. Once I had the super hand I couldn't stop hitting him till I knew he wasn't getting up. So sad he died"

There'd be pretty much the same amount of evidence as to who started what as we have now.

If the players were reversed with the same evidence (or lack thereof) that we have currently, I'd say Martin should walk.

I'm going to have to disagree. A black killing a mexican with a solid self defense claim? Probably never even get to trial.

Magorn:Phinn: TheWhoppah: Nabb1: Yes, but it was warranted here. This judge has been brazenly pro-prosecution from the jump, so Zimmerman's lawyers are just creating a record for appeal if the jury flakes out and convicts because they are afraid of the lynch mob surrounding this whole thing.

Granting this particular defense motion is only warranted when the prosecution does not put on any evidence that the defendant committed a crime. How anyone feels about the quality of that evidence is irrelevant. All judges everywhere are pro-prosecution. We are so jaded to pro-prosecution judges that those with only a slight preference for the state are deemed "defense friendly" and those that somehow manage to be actually neutral are viewed a radically pro-criminal and replaced at the next election.

That's not true. The defense motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted, because the prosecution's evidence, even if taken as 100% true, did not rule out the reasonable hypothesis that GZ acted in an innocent manner. The State's evidence, even if all of it is to be believed, failed to eliminate all of the scenarios whereby GZ is not guilty, leaving a guilty hypothesis as the only one.

That's the standard when the evidence is circumstantial.

No reasonable juror could conclude that GZ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With this evidence, if believed, a juror could reasonably conclude he's probably guilty, but probably doesn't cut it.

The evidence is nowhere NEAR that clear cut. Remember, the jury is the SOLE judge of the credibility of all witnesses and what the facts are in this case. If they chose to believe the wtiness who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, rather than the witness who claimed the opposite. If they chose to believe the one who said Martin was the one calling for hlp, rather than the ones who identified Zimmerman, all of which they are completely within their rights to do, then they could easily convict, and ther would be zero grounds for a ...

I don't mind to cloud this issue with facts, but the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman witnessed this before the shot. All other witnesses saw Zimmerman on top after the shot. Zimmerman said on day one that he was on top of Martin after the shot.

Scerpes:In high profile cases, an elected judge is unwilling to toss the charges anyway - that's the only reason Zimmerman is still facing trial.

I don't disagree but what I described is still what the government has to do to get an indictment even if they are just going through the motions so to speak. Someone who is supposed to be impartial is supposed to review the evidence before the indictment (on murder 2 or less) is signed by the judge be it either a Grand Jury or the judge himself.

I only saw about 20 minutes of testimony from the lead investigator being examined by the defense a few days ago, so I could be wroung. However, it seemed very clear that the prosecution didn't have the kind of evidence to prove much of anything.

It's sad, because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency. However, with respect to the law, I don't think being a POS is illegal. So as it stands I can't see him being convicted, despite morally reprehensible behavior that cost a young man his life. I just hope that if he walks, this follows Zimmerman around for the rest of his life.

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:Cpl.D: The important thing to remember here is that it's apparently legally and morally correct to follow someone and confront them in the dark, get them to hit you by acting in a threatening manner, then shoot them dead.

Just remember the crocodile tears later.

/that what these threads teach me

Wow, even on day 10 we're getting these morons with their horribly formed opinions. I thought the tards would have dwindled down by now...

It's weird. Days 3-5 (first three Fark threads) were nice threads dedicated to kibitzing the trial, without an unreasonable, emotional argument in sight. Last week of testimony it's been getting worse, every day.

Anyway, this thread has a disturbing lack of Molly West. Let's fix that:

Phinn:Deucednuisance: The Muthaship: There is certainly evidence of that (Guy and Zimmerman's injuries, etc), but that's not the point. He doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

For Fark's sake. All these threads and there are still people who don't understand what an "affirmative defense" is?

And that self-defense is a (if not the) textbook example of one?

And presume to speak with authority, despite that ignorance?

Oh, right, this is Fark. Never mind. Carry on.

You're not going to make me cite the case law that says that the State is required to disprove a claim of self-defense, are you?

Because I will.

If you want to embarrass yourself, please do. I'll be waiting with my legal citation. Tell us all about how the defendant must prove his self-defense claim. Go on.

Why even bother citing to the case law? The standard jury instructions recommended by the Florida Supreme Court state as much.

Mr_Fabulous:I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Well... ya. That's what the AA community should be pissed off about. GZ most likely acted in lawful self defense. But we all know that a black man in a similar situation would be charged, have no bail at all, sit in jail for 3 years while his incompetent public defender dicked around, and then be found guilty. That's what the AA community should be marching for. Black people should have the same right to defend themselves - de facto and de jure.

mayIFark:Xenomech: The cognitive dissonance in these Zimmerman threads is astounding.

If Zimmerman didn't want to be put into a position where he'd have to use deadly force to protect himself from an attack, then he shouldn't have been investigating a suspicious person in his neighborhood while armed. And if a woman didn't want to be put into a position where she'd be raped, then she should not be walking around sketchy areas while wearing skimpy clothing. Right?

Wrong, there is a slight difference: with your skimpy dress, you would also have to carry a big sign saying $20/night. And after you get your $20, file for rape.

The Singing Bush:ChaosStar: TheWhoppah: Wangiss: ChaosStar: What people do not seem to be able to comprehend is nothing prior to the concrete being used and/or Martin reaching for the gun matters.None of it. At all. Period.Doesn't matter if GZ chased Martin calling him every racial slur in the book.Doesn't matter if GZ threw the first punch or Martin did.

As soon as lethal force was used, or attempted to be used again GZ, he was within his rights as someone afraid for his life to use his ccw.The concrete is a deadly weapon, and was used.Reaching for GZ's gun was lethal force attempting to be utilized.

This completely nullifies not only a murder charge but a manslaughter or any other homicide charge.Not my opinion, that's the law.

Well put.

Unless GZ displayed the gun FIRST and TM was attempting to use the concrete to disarm him... In that scenario the use of the concrete was justified and GZ is guilty of murder.

WrongGZ could have pulled up his shirt and said "see my gat!" and TM still couldn't have attacked him and certainly couldn't have used the concrete to disarm him, however in the world that would work.

Are you sure? If he pulled his shirt up and said "see my gat!", isn't that brandishing, which is a felony? Doesn't self-defense go out the window during the commission of a felony?

Yes, that's brandishing, but that doesn't give Martin fear of lethal force.GZ would actually have to make to draw the weapon or draw the weapon, before TM could use the self defense claim of preemptive striking.Self defense goes out the window during commission of a felony unless you are protecting your own life from unwarranted lethal force and have made every reasonable means to escape unless you're in a place where you have a right to be.Credit card fraud is a felony, but you don't have to allow someone to shoot you over it for instance.

halB:Phinn: Deucednuisance: The Muthaship: There is certainly evidence of that (Guy and Zimmerman's injuries, etc), but that's not the point. He doesn't have to prove himself innocent.

For Fark's sake. All these threads and there are still people who don't understand what an "affirmative defense" is?

And that self-defense is a (if not the) textbook example of one?

And presume to speak with authority, despite that ignorance?

Oh, right, this is Fark. Never mind. Carry on.

You're not going to make me cite the case law that says that the State is required to disprove a claim of self-defense, are you?

Because I will.

If you want to embarrass yourself, please do. I'll be waiting with my legal citation. Tell us all about how the defendant must prove his self-defense claim. Go on.

Why even bother citing to the case law? The standard jury instructions recommended by the Florida Supreme Court state as much.

Mr_Fabulous: I am going to say the same thing today as I did months ago, when I first learned of this story.

If an adult black man carrying a pistol pursued some unarmed white (or other non-black) 17-year-old kid in a nice Florida neighborhood... and shot him dead... not one person here would be arguing his innocence. Not one.

Well... ya. That's what the AA community should be pissed off about. GZ most likely acted in lawful self defense. But we all know that a black man in a similar situation would be charged, have no bail at all, sit in jail for 3 years while his incompetent public defender dicked around, and then be found guilty. That's what the AA community should be marching for. Black people should have the same right to defend themselves - de facto and de jure.

You should seriously read up on a lot of the self-defense claims in Florida since the law was passed. I think you'd be surprised.

Boojum2k:siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

Cletus C.:Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

I like how Zimmerman is the one who "acted without restraint", not the guy who attacked him for no reason.

nekom:This text is now purple: nekom: Poverty, the destruction of the black family, racism, there are a ton of reasons for the situation, and in many ways we're STILL seeing the results of slavery turned into an underclass.

I get the first two, but what do racism and slavery have to do with black-on-black violence?

Well, there is no doubt in my mind that slavery is ultimately responsible for creating the black underclass. It's obviously gotten a LOT better over the years, but the statistics still show that blacks are nowhere near economic parity with whites. Racism probably also originated from slavery, you'd really have to completely dehumanize a race of people in order to treat them as property and still be able to sleep at night.

You're going to have to help out with that slavery-as-origin-of-racism angle. The Irish suffered under German racism, but I don't see much slavery having gone on to cause it.

The Census Bureau is a silly place, and they say silly things. Bill Clinton and Osama bin Laden (to pick two examples) are of the same "race" under their categorisation.

If Bin Laden had been an Afghanistani then yes he would have been considered the same race however he was Arab (having his roots in Saudi Arabia). Most, if not all, of the members of the Taliban in Afghanistan for example would be considered Caucasian which is generally considered white.

Cletus C.:Boojum2k: siva: because it is readily apparent that Trayvon Martin wouldn't have died if Zimmerman had acted with a small bit of restraint and common decency.

He should totally have let Trayvon beat him to death, that would have been the decent thing to do.

You think if Zimmerman had left it with the cops after calling them, Martin then would have followed him to his home and beaten him to death as Georgie Boy was sitting down for his evening constitutional?

Martin had a history of beating snitches. The fact that the AA community vilifies those that try to use the law is a very large problem. Don't complain about crime when no will speak up about it.

Haven't you ever seen an "uplifting" news report, or movie or story where the citizens of a rough neighborhood "take back" their streets from the thugs/ prostitutes/ gang-bangers/ hoods? At some point in every one of these offerings, there is an early climactic moment where a confrontation occurs. Usually multiple confrontations. Early in the story, the confrontation goes in favor of the antagonist(s) of the story. And, the "turning point" involves the confrontation going in favor of the people trying to "take back their streets." Well, this is no different. This country is built upon the foundational principle that we as citizens, bear the personal right (and responsibility) of seeing to the protection of our selves, our neighbors, and our neighborhoods.

As a black kid in the 70s and 80s, the movies I remember were about the young black kid who was out trying to do the right thing. The turning point in those movies is when the kid gets killed by people who believe themselves to be authorities because the he fit the description. (See: "Cornbread, Earl and Me"). In these movies, the black underclass, finally tired of being the victims of criminals and the police, rise up and defend themselves against the police state in the ghettos of America. Well, this is no different. No longer will black people accept that we all should be treated like criminals because there are black people who commit crimes. The original issue here was that the initial decision not to charge George Zimmerman based on his own recounting of the events leading to the death of a 17 year old seemed to be out of line with how police normally treat these cases. Now, the issue for myself is how ready many non-minorities are to let a man go free based on the criminal behavior of OTHER black people. The defense seems to be saying, "well, there have been break-ins by black people, so any person would be well within their rights to approach and questionany black person at any time to determi ...

This text is now purple:You're going to have to help out with that slavery-as-origin-of-racism angle. The Irish suffered under German racism, but I don't see much slavery having gone on to cause it.

Oh sure racism has existed pretty much since human civilization has. I just think that slavery was a key factor in it in the case of the USA. There was a time when it was common for a LOT of people to actually believe that they were less than human, inferior and not fit to live amongst us, even some who argued that slavery was to their benefit. That's why even after slavery officially ended, blacks were viewed as inferior and treated as such for many many generations. It takes a LONG time to heal those kind of wounds.

Magorn:Thunderpipes: ObnoxiousLonghorn: Thunderpipes: Remember, if not for George, Tray would have been featured in attacks like the nanny cam home invasion in a few years. If he were allowed to beat George to death, he would have been elevated to hero status among his peers.

There is enough ignorant derp coming from the J4T morans in here, no need for Team Zimmerman derp as well.

Evidence supports this. Pictures of Tray with guns, with weed, evidence he was selling. Culturally, you know this to be true. If he killed a "white" dude with his bare hands at 17 he would become a God. You don't all of a sudden turn nice after that. Even the way he talked and his nicknames and the gold teeth show what was really going on, and you know it.

Just go ahead and drop the N-bomb, in your heart you know you want to, and every time you or other Zimmerman supporters call Martin " a thug" you effectively are. You are so terrified of the Big Scary black man you saw in all those 90's movies starring Wesley Snipes or Omar Epps, that any display of black Male Machismo is terrifying to you. It makes you say stupid shiat like "If he killed a "white" dude with his bare hands at 17 he would become a God" . As if you have even the slightest, barest inkling of the world Martin came from or how "those people" think.

Your racism distorts how you view reality without you even really being aware of it. If a 17 year old redneck posed with his favorite shotguns, you'd think he was a good ol' boy standing up for the second Amendment, not a "gang-banger wanna be". If a fat white kid from the suburbs posed on FB with his favorite ninja sword, or "tactical" knife or nunchucks, you'd never call him "a Thug", he'd be an idiot and a geek. And some white kid talking smack about the dope he did would be a "harmless stoner" not " a drug dealer" if you claim otherwise, you're a liar.

This is the basic truth of the matter. Most Zimmerman supporters are terrified racists, not legal analysts. I've w ...

Okay, so now you have shifted from moving the goal posts, to citing the wrong case law to just claiming people are racist.

Let me guess, you are next going to just go all out and go for personal attacks?

I don't know why attacking a Hispanic defendant by ignoring the facts, or lying about the facts ("George lied in court") the way people here do is not considered racist.